This week's seminar seems more relevant in Singapore's context than any other Western countries in the world. Singapore remains to be conservative towards complete freedom of speech, aligning with strict defamatory and libel laws. Within the Singapore context, it serve to protect the government and key political leaders from slander and defamatory remarks. In other cases, it was used as a tool to bankrupt political opponents like Dr. Chee Soon Juan and the late Mr. J.B. Jeyaretnam. Nonetheless, Singapore has somewhat made history with its defamation and libel laws.
Hence, working with such strict constraints and margin of error, any negative remark or opinion has the potential of being a libelous or defamatory remark or words. Journalists have to equip themselves with the knowledge of media law. At the first stage and line of defense is to avoid defamation altogether, if it is not factual but opinionated, seeking to question the subject/subjects' reputation, it should not be published. If necessary, the second line of defense is to be equipped with legal defenses such as fair comment.
Similar to the previous week's subject about truth and objectivity, a journalist has to abide to ethics, as Keeble (2009) has explained, as a set of code of conduct and actions to guide a journalist. Ethics serve not only to protect journalists themselves from defamation and ill-conduct but most importantly, it takes into a further consideration for sources. Just like the medical profession and ethics: "Do no harm". Journalism also sought to keep their sources safe (anonymity against corporate/criminal illegal activities) and to protect those who are helpless (victims). Journalists must recognise there are potential moral minefields and ethics to uphold their professionalism.
References:
Keeble, R. (2009). Ethics for Journalists second edition. Routledge: New York.
No comments:
Post a Comment